Submarines

[joojoo]

Hey to all 

 

Is there any chance to see a US submarine in near future in DCS?

 

Thanx!

[Northstar98]

I would like to hope so, naval base Guam IRL is home to 2 Los-Angeles-class Flt. II and 2 Los Angeles-class Flt. III (688i) SSNs, as well as an Emory S. Land-class submarine tender.

 

Bear in mind thought that submarines are in their absolute infancy and are super simplified (as well as the naval environment as a whole).

Edited February 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[upyr1]

With the Marian's map coming out, I would really love to see a DCS :Fleet ops module. With improved AI and damage modules as well as a lot of ships.

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

With the Marian's map coming out, I would really love to see a DCS :Fleet ops module. With improved AI and damage modules as well as a lot of ships.

 

I absolutely agree, though the naval environment as a whole needs some major reworking and overhauling, the thing is it's just so much work, and I'd probably prioritise CA over ships.

 

Things like ship sensors, countermeasures etc, of course the damage model (and preferably physics modelling - such as ship sinking/interacting with waves) and AI. I could go on for absolutely ages though.

 

Spoiler

As an example:

 

AN/SPY-1 isn't even defined, in DCS the RADAR is a copied and pasted MPQ-53 - the STR/FCR of the Patriot.

The various RADARs of the Kuznetsov and Nimitz-Roosevelt are basically absent. Here's what the sensors looks like for the Nimitz-Roosevelt class of the SC module:

 

GT.Sensors = {  OPTIC = {"long-range naval optics", "long-range naval LLTV"},
                RADAR = {
                    "seasparrow tr",
                    "carrier search radar",
                },
            };

GT.DetectionRange	= GT.airFindDist;
GT.ThreatRange		= GT.airWeaponDist;
GT.Singleton		= "yes";

'long-range naval optics' and 'long-range naval LLTV' is basically common to every ship in DCS. Here's what the 'carrier search radar' is defined as being in the db_sensors.lua:

(the Russian text is just saying it assumes a 40m mast height - to take into account the curve of the Earth.

 

["carrier search radar"] = -- сенсор для радара освещения надводной обстановки(усредненные параметры:
                                        --                                  высота мачты радара - 40м
                                        --                              )
        {
            type = RADAR_SS,
            vehicles_detection = true;
            airborne_radar = false;
            scan_volume = 
            {
                azimuth = {-180, 180},
                elevation = {-3, 10}
            },
            max_measuring_distance = 39000,
            detection_distance = 
            {
                [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 39000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 39000.0
                },
                [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 39000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 39000.0
                }
            },
            lock_on_distance_coeff = 1.0,
            velocity_limits = 
            {
                radial_velocity_min = 15,
            },
            scan_period = 12.0,
            RCS = 100.0,
            RBM_detection_distance = 39000.0
        },

 

Apart from the 4 Mk95 RADARs for Sea Sparrow (FCR - PDI/CWI) no other sensor is defined - including the SPS-48E and SPS-49 RADARs - the principle RADARs on board.

 

There's other issues too, the Phalanx CIWS has it's own independent TAR and TTR/FCR housed in the large R2-D2 looking radome - these are completely undefined and are not present. Same goes for the sensors on the Kortik CIWS.

 

I could go on for ages but I hope that's got the gist of it. 

 

[rkk01]

Can’t see much point in modern SSN or SSBN in DCS World... yes the SSNs can use stand-off weapons against shore targets and are a major defensive and offensive asset for surface naval groups, but they’re not likely to have any relevance in a flight sim.  Would be a nightmare to model - physics, passive and active acoustic detection systems, classified data etc...

 

Diesel powered patrol SSKs on the other hand....

[Northstar98]

13 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Can’t see much point in modern SSN or SSBN in DCS World... yes the SSNs can use stand-off weapons against shore targets and are a major defensive and offensive asset for surface naval groups, but they’re not likely to have any relevance in a flight sim.

 

I kinda agree, but we already have a Chinese SSN, Guam is home base to 4 fairly iconic SSNs + a submarine tender, and all those submarines have a VLS for Tomahawks. They should be easier to make than surface combatants (even if the latter is more relevant), given how simplified submarines are in DCS (sensors, weapons, physics etc, obviously no SONAR modelling whatsoever, active isn't too bad - the underlying principles is the same as RADAR - obviously you've got convergent zones and thermoclines, but that's beyond even the planned environment/weather upgrade). 

 

Of course ASW isn't really a thing, the only conventional form of warfare that's absent from DCS (aside from maybe amphibious operations). 

 

Quote

Would be a nightmare to model - physics, passive and active acoustic detection systems, classified data etc...

 

Diesel powered patrol SSKs on the other hand....

 

Have exactly the same things that apply to them too? How do things you list apply to SSNs but not SSKs? They have exactly the same issues in terms of modelling.

 

The current Kilo we have is a one-boat modification of the original with a propulsor c. early 90s. The Type 093 SSN is post 2000s and there is also a Pr. 636.3 Improved Kilo in the modelviewer, which are post 2010s. At least the Los Angeles Flt. 2 and 3 based at Guam IRL are late 80s - early 90s.

 

That saying, even surface ships could do with a major rework/upgrade, they're currently pretty low fidelity, even for paid assets.

 

SSBNs are probably not going to be a thing anyway, their weapons have a range that only makes sense on a world map (which is probably a decade away, unfortunately), and their warheads typically nuclear, and bigger yield nuclear at that.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Northstar98

[rkk01]

Well, there’s a few more SSKs coming for the Falklands map...

and in general, the lower endurance, lower submerged speed, need to snort and tactical use in littoral waters means the SSKs are perhaps more likely to come into contact with air assets

 

The Argentinians lost Santa Fe to air attack in S Georgia, whilst one RN Oberon class SSK, HMS Onyx, operated with special forces during the Falklands campaign. I believe that Razbam hope to include both of these boats

Edited February 14, 2021 by rkk01

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Well, there’s a few more SSKs coming for the Falklands map...

and in general, the lower endurance, lower submerged speed, need to snort and tactical use in littoral waters means the SSKs are perhaps more likely to come into contact with air assets

 

True, but nuclear boats are typically noisier (apart from the most modern ones) than SSKs or SSPs, by virtue of needing to operate pumps and turbomachinery - which are harder to make quieter than electric-motors.

 

The other thing with diesel boats or AIP boats, is that they have different endurances based on what propulsion system they're using; DCS doesn't model this to my knowledge.

 

But the limitations you list apply to SSKs and SSPs to exactly the same degree as they apply to SSNs and DCS is incredibly basics when it comes to submarines.

 

Spoiler

• Very rudimentary physics modelling. Naming just one example, IRL submarines have different maximum speeds depending on whether or not they're surfaces or submerged and what propulsion system they use. In DCS the Type VIIC u-boat is just as fast submerged, as it is surfaced, which is completely wrong (should manage ~18 knots surfaced on both diesels, but only around 7.5 knots submerged on batteries and electric motors.
• No underwater effects such as cavitation.
• SONAR completely absent (even to the level of WW2 era stuff), more to that point submarines sound identical to every other hip in DCS (they all sound exactly the same), and can even be heard even when submerged.
• Torpedoes at the moment are only WW2 style gyroangle straight runners, and even they have some issues.
• Ignoring SONAR other sensors are basically absent too apart from completely generic periscopes - which the AI always deploy when at PD, there's no RADAR or ESM present (even though current submarines have these present).

 

I could go into more detail for ages, but I think these are some of the main issues.

 

And in DCS, the only ASW missions I can think of occurring is probably closer to the coast or nearby to other ASW assets such as frigates, cruisers or destroyers, which is more of a thing for SSKs.

 

But don't forget we already have a Cold War MPA in DCS (even if it is in dire need for a graphical rework), that being the Tu-142; but there's another MPA slated to be added in the 2021 newsletter - the Il-38. 

 

Quote

The Argentinians lost Santa Fe to air attack in S Georgia, whilst one RN Oberon class SSK, HMS Onyx, operated with special forces during the Falklands campaign. I believe that Razbam hope to include both of these boats

 

Yes, I am all for adding assets consistent with the maps; which is why these submarines would be good for a modern Marianas map. 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Northstar98

[bies]

I would also like to see some submarine warfare but it's too complicated. In "Red Storm Rising" or Sonalysts submarine PC simulator "Dangerous Waters" with P-3C Orion and MH-60R Seahawk hunting the submarines was really interesting.

I doubt ED has spare time needed to code something like that, submarine warfare would need to be fairy complex to be interesting.

 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, bies said:

I would also like to see some submarine warfare but it's too complicated. In "Red Storm Rising" or Sonalysts submarine PC simulator "Dangerous Waters" with P-3C Orion and MH-60R Seahawk hunting the submarines was really interesting.

I doubt ED has spare time needed to code something like that, submarine warfare would need to be fairy complex to be interesting.

 

I agree, but it doesn't necessarily have to be full-fidelity, particularly when the entire rest of the whole naval aspect is very simplified as is.

 

For instance SONAR can be abstracted to purely active, with maybe made up pulses. Fundamentals are roughly similar to pulse RADARs we have now just with very, very, very, very low PRFs and update rates.

 

It would be simplistic and would leave a fair bit to be desired, but something is better than nothing. The main issue here is the sound engine which will need to support sounds being reflecting (at least underwater); necessitating, I imagine, some form of raycasting (which some RADARs already do - namely the F-14). Of course countermeasures such as noise makers (which will also produce bubbles that reflect active SONAR - behaving exactly like how chaff IRL behaves, though obviously, even chaff in DCS doesn't behave properly, not affecting RADARs at all, even pulse types with essentially no filtering, though at least with SONAR it only has what can be thought as TWS at best (just with a very low update rate) - there's no locking modes such as range-gating, velocity gating etc, even torpedoes are essentially low-update rate TWS).

 

Similarly with MAD, it can be abstracted to a scan zone with a short range, and if an appropriate submarine is in the scan area you can get a detection with a certain probability - exactly how most RADARs behave if you look through db_sensors.lua

 

Passive SONAR is more difficult and will necessitate a rework of a lot of things, namely all ship sounds (they all sound exactly the same, regardless of size/propulsion methods), a submerged WW2 diesel electric submarine sounds exactly the same (even on the surface) as a large nuclear powered aircraft carrier, which also sounds the same as a diesel/petrol powered small craft and a diesel powered cargo ship. As well as things like cavitation and transients.

[upyr1]

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I absolutely agree, though the naval environment as a whole needs some major reworking and overhauling, the thing is it's just so much work, and I'd probably prioritise CA over ships.

 

Things like ship sensors, countermeasures etc, of course the damage model (and preferably physics modelling - such as ship sinking/interacting with waves) and AI. I could go on for absolutely ages though.

 

One of the reasons I want to see Fleet Ops is that I believe it would help cover the cost of fixing all of that. I do believe we need a Combined Arms II at least to fix VR

[Irishlad200000]

The amount of ocean area now warrants proper usage. More expansion on combined arms would be nice too. If only you could control an infantry commander and be able to enter vehicles. That would be fun. We are a long way off from that mechanic I think

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk